Harvard evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould wrote in 1977: "Biology took away our status as paragons created in the image of God." Darwinism teaches that we are accidental byproducts of purposeless natural processes that had no need for God, and this anti-religious dogma enjoys a taxpayer-funded monopoly in America's public schools and universities. Teachers who dare to question it openly have in many cases lost their jobs.

The issue here is not "evolution"  a broad term that can mean simply change within existing species (which no one doubts). The issue is Darwinism  which claims that all living things are descended from a common ancestor, modified by natural selection acting on random genetic mutations.

According to Darwinists, there is such overwhelming evidence for their view that it should be considered a fact. Yet to the Darwinists' dismay, at least three-quarters of the American people  citizens of the most scientifically advanced country in history  reject it.

A study published Aug. 11 in the pro-Darwin magazine Science attributes this primarily to biblical fundamentalism, even though polls have consistently shown that half of the Americans who reject Darwinism are not biblical fundamentalists. Could it be that the American people are skeptical of Darwinism because they're smarter than Darwinists think?

On Aug. 17, the pro-Darwin magazine Nature reported that scientists had just found the "brain evolution gene." There is circumstantial evidence that this gene may be involved in brain development in embryos, and it is surprisingly different in humans and chimpanzees. According to Nature, the gene may thus harbor "the secret of what makes humans different from our nearest primate relatives."

Three things are remarkable about this report. First, it implicitly acknowledges that the evidence for Darwinism was never as overwhelming as its defenders claim. It has been almost 30 years since Gould wrote that biology accounts for human nature, yet Darwinists are just now turning up a gene that may have been involved in brain evolution.

Second, embryologists know that a single gene cannot account for the origin of the human brain. Genes involved in embryo development typically have multiple effects, and complex organs such as the brain are influenced by many genes. The simple-mindedness of the "brain evolution gene" story is breathtaking.

Third, the only thing scientists demonstrated in this case was a correlation between a genetic difference and brain size. Every scientist knows, however, that correlation is not the same as causation. Among elementary school children, reading ability is correlated with shoe size, but this is because young schoolchildren with small feet have not yet learned to read  not because larger feet cause a student to read better or because reading makes the feet grow. Similarly, a genetic difference between humans and chimps cannot tell us anything about what caused differences in their brains unless we know what the gene actually does. In this case, as Nature reports, "what the gene does is a mystery."

So after 150 years, Darwinists are still looking for evidence  any evidence, no matter how skimpy  to justify their speculations. The latest hype over the "brain evolution gene" unwittingly reveals just how underwhelming the evidence for their view really is.

The truth is Darwinism is not a scientific theory, but a materialistic creation myth masquerading as science. It is first and foremost a weapon against religion  especially traditional Christianity. Evidence is brought in afterwards, as window dressing.

This is becoming increasingly obvious to the American people, who are not the ignorant backwoods religious dogmatists that Darwinists make them out to be. Darwinists insult the intelligence of American taxpayers and at the same time depend on them for support. This is an inherently unstable situation, and it cannot last.

If I were a Darwinist, I would be afraid. Very afraid.

Get Wells' widely popular "Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design"

Jonathan Wells is the author of "The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design" (Regnery, 2006) and Icons of Evolution (Regnery, 2000). He holds a Ph.D. in biology from the University of California at Berkeley and a Ph.D. in theology from Yale University. Wells is currently a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute in Seattle

"It is important to emphasize at the outset that the argument presented here is entirely consistent with the basic naturalistic assumption of modern science - that the cosmos is a seamless unity which can be comprehended ultimately in its entirety by human reason and in which all phenomena, including life and evolution and the origin of man, are ultimately explicable in terms of natural processes. This is an assumption which is entirely opposed to that of the so-called "special creationist school". According to special creationism, living organisms are not natural forms, whose origin and design were built into the laws of nature from the beginning, but rather contingent forms analogous in essence to human artifacts, the result of a series of supernatural acts, involving the suspension of natural law. Contrary to the creationist position, the whole argument presented here is critically dependent on the presumption of the unbroken continuity of the organic world - that is, on the reality of organic evolution and on the presumption that all living organisms on earth are natural forms in the profoundest sense of the word, no less natural than salt crystals, atoms, waterfalls, or galaxies."

SirLinksalot:

That does not make him a non-skeptic of evolution.

LOL.

Among other things it means he accepts abiogenesis as a natural phenomenon.

864
posted on 09/30/2006 8:17:24 AM PDT
by js1138
(The absolute seriousness of someone who is terminally deluded.)

LOL, you quote his 2000 statement and then ignore the following statement he makes in his 2002 book :

"All the evidence available in the biological sciences supports the core proposition of traditional natural theology--that the cosmos is a specially designed whole with life and mankind as its fundamental goal and purpose, a whole in which all facets of reality, from the size of galaxies to the thermal capacity of water, have their meaning and explanation in this central fact."(p. 389)

I mentioned Denton because HE IS A SKEPTIC OF EVOLUTION. I did it in response to a question asked --- ARE ALL SKEPTICS OF EVOLUTION CHRISTIANS OR RELIGIOUS PEOPLE ? to which I said --- NOT NECESSARILY. I gave Denton and Berlinski as examples.

Denton's latest could almost be seen as a sequel to his first major critique of Darwinian Evolution, "Evolution a Theory in Crisis." In that book he devastates the Neo-Darwinian paradigm with evidence from various fields of biology, and concludes that life does appear to be designed. But then he does not follow the conclusion to a Designer, but remains a confirmed agnostic ( WHICH IS MY POINT --- NOT ALL SKEPTICS OF DARWINISM ARE THEISTS). Apparently to resolve this peculiar stance of his, he writes the second volume, "Nature's Destiny". In it, he dives into a full-fledged purpose-driven (teleological) view of life and the universe. Or more accurately, what he proposes is a thoroughly deterministic view of life, based on the inherent physical and chemical constants in the laws of nature. While I by no means subscribe to his evolutionary conclusions regarding the evidence he propounds, I found the evidence and research he presented pointing to design to be fascinating.

What I find ironic is that here we have evidence - that is, an increasingly clear view of the fundamental essences of cellular structure and function - we have almost universal acknowledgement among leading biologists that these things appear designed - and yet Darwinists cling to stochasticism!

Why do so many refuse to let go of materialist assumptions when the simplest explanation is design?

It is as if nature shouts Planned! from the cosmos down to the micros - yet so many prominent minds refuse to even entertain the idea - why is that?

I see no other explanation than a pre-existing commitment to a philosophical view, one adherants hold is superior to the metaphysical superstitions of the ignorant masses while refusing to admit its own metaphysical nature!

"All the evidence available in the biological sciences supports the core proposition of traditional natural theology--that the cosmos is a specially designed whole with life and mankind as its fundamental goal and purpose, a whole in which all facets of reality, from the size of galaxies to the thermal capacity of water, have their meaning and explanation in this central fact."

So what's your point? That's just a fancy statement of the anthropic principle, something dreamed up by physicists.

I don't resist religious thoughts unless they contradict the findings of science, or -- much worse -- get used by the anti-science crowd to oppose research.

872
posted on 09/30/2006 9:16:41 AM PDT
by js1138
(The absolute seriousness of someone who is terminally deluded.)

What I find ironic is that here we have evidence - that is, an increasingly clear view of the fundamental essences of cellular structure and function - we have almost universal acknowledgement among leading biologists that these things appear designed - and yet Darwinists cling to stochasticism!

The origin of diversity in life is pretty much settled, and it is stochastic. The constraint being that stochastic variations have to survive and reproduce.

The question of original life cannot be settled by sitting on your ass and thinking about it. Its a matter for research.

I ask you if quantum theory could have been invented by people thinking about first principles, or could have been decided without the two slit experiment.

874
posted on 09/30/2006 9:22:07 AM PDT
by js1138
(The absolute seriousness of someone who is terminally deluded.)

Behe was not saying he believes in astrology or that it is scientific.

Behe specificially stated that astrology would qualify as a "scientific theory" based upon his definition of the term. I have seen no one suggest that he accepts astrology, but his own words suggest that he believes it scientific.

876
posted on 09/30/2006 9:27:08 AM PDT
by Dimensio
(http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.